“Does a society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be natural toward competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way to live?
--“Justice” by Professor Michael J. Sandel
I’ve been asking myself for the last 6 months why Peace Corps. You psycho, get out now… the land of Chipotle, English and jackets is just a plane ride away. Even I don’t really understand why I moved away from comfort and normality, from people I’ve spent years building relationships with, and to a country I’d never been and knew no one… Part lack of direction, part carpe diem, part gut feeling I guess. Some may call it a midlife crisis, stupidity, or it was probably just my stomach growling. You may call this blog entry excessively cheesy, flower child syndrome, I-have-to-much-free-time condition, philosophical gibberish, or whatever, but after reading this quote here’s how I now better conceptualize the attraction of the Peace Corps.
Latin American cultures tend to be characterized as “collectivist”, arguably more a reflection of the first type of society described in the quote, whereas Westernized, “individualistic” cultures may be more similar to the latter (generally speaking… wide-encompassing societies and legal systems have aspects that fall into both categories). Looking at religion in Colombia and the US as an example… the church is prominent in Colombian society and suggests a virtuous life based on the bible’s teachings. Jesus appears almost everywhere: from the back of buses, to schools, to supermarkets. Meanwhile, the US has separation of church and state, and Americans practice and discus religion on a much more private, individual level. This is not to imply that the church doesn’t play a major role in the US or that Colombia does not value all religions and beliefs; the point is that religion is used in distinct ways based on two contrasting notions of how society should be.
Maybe an ideal, just society promotes both collective virtue and individual freedom. Supposing the most important virtue is the golden rule and the most important freedom is choice, therefore the ultimate, just society is one where citizens make their own, individual decisions, so long as they don’t harm others.
So why do people become Peace Corps volunteers and moreover why do they continue to do so for 27 months? It’s being part of a just society; a combination of the golden rule and individual choice; an incorporation of collectivist and individualistic ideals. The Peace Corps is transnational, fluid and cross-cultural because it promotes virtues that aren’t only societal, but global: peaceful diplomacy, human rights (in my case, the right to a good education), empowerment and sustainability, walking a mile in someone’s shoes before you judge him or her (Colombian or American), and that it is not physical appearance (materials, skin color, gender, or age) but what is on the inside that matters. When applying to the Peace Corps, I could have gone to 75 countries and been welcomed into thousands of communities. That, if nothing else, proves a global virtue. On the other hand, joining the Peace Corps is a personal choice that I made as an individual. In a past blog entry I wrote about how crazy volunteers are to choose this lifestyle. Crazy, probably. Choice, undoubtedly. I am not tied down to a controlled lifestyle or job and I am not going through the motions; I chose my work hours, my vacations, my friends, my food, when I go to bed and wake up. I am also giving my students the power of choice, for with English more possibilities will potentially be available. Actively interacting with a worldwide value system and simultaneously creating my own life and beliefs… that is why I joined and choose to stay in the Peace Corps.
